Dear John, (01)
OK I'll take a stab at these. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (04)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> So we have to ask some serious questions:
>
> 1. Aside from axioms, which could be added to
> Azmat's ontology if anyone wanted to do so,
> what features make any of the current proposals
> better or worse than Azmat's upper level plus
> some suitable axioms? (05)
MW: I haven't been able to find something I can download,
either it asks for a password or there is no file.
>
> 2. Is a one-size-fits-all upper ontology essential
> or even desirable to support interoperability? (06)
MW: No. Ontology is extremely immature as a subject and
to coalesce now around a single ontology would stifle
progress. I would see the ideal situation as there being
a handful of major ontologies with coopetition between
them. I think this is most likely to drive the improvement
that I beleive is necessary.
>
> 3. If there is a need for a single upper ontology,
> by what criteria could we judge which, if any,
> of the current proposals are worthy candidates? (07)
MW: Well, ignoring the need for a single ontology, I would
compare ontologies based on accuracy (how close to the truth
they are).
>
> 4. Are there any observable weaknesses in the
> currently implemented systems that demonstrate
> which aspects of an upper ontology should not
> be considered for a universal upper ontology? (08)
MW: Not sure I understand the question. Probably the naming
conventions and other peripheral trivia.
>
> 5. Are there are real success stories in the current
> systems that demonstrate which aspects should be
> considered universally desirable? (09)
MW: Dealing with change and the history of change.
>
> 6. Is interoperability fundamentally task dependent? (010)
MW: No. Certainly not if the immense effort we put into
making our interfaces consistent is anything to go by
and the very network nature of the interfaces. (011)
> If so, would a fixed upper ontology be a blessing
> or a handicap? (012)
MW: For a particular organization, it would be a blessing
as an architectural component in sewing the businesses
information together.
>
> 7. What techniques or methodologies could enable systems
> with different upper ontologies to interoperate at
> a task-dependent level? (013)
MW: It is commonplace for individual applications to have
different ontologies (but hardly upper ontologies). For
an organization to have and use an upper ontology as the basis
for sewing them together is invaluable, and provides the basis
for a common language for that business.
>
> I'm sure there are many other questions that could be
> raised, but these are some that should be addressed
> before we make any decisions about which, if any, upper
> ontology to give the "Good Ontology Seal of Approval".
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (015)
|